They did two independent studies and both had the same result.
There's also a litte-known third study, done several years earlier, that confirms the results.
"Windows 10 ain't done until Kaby Lake don't run".
Wait, wasn't there something similar from Microsoft in the 1908s?
MorsÃrfossar... I'm curious, what was it called before the earthquake shook up the name?
The Miss would have jumped over to the Atchafalaya channel years ago
Is that the one that looks like a shark?
so now you have two coders looking at every line of code?
You really only need one, as long as the one is called something like Knuth or Venema.
Simple medical problems are simple. Typical medical problems are not.
Oh I don't know, I've always had great success treating patients using a course of leeches. A leech on the ear for ear ache, a leech on the bottom for constipation, just pop a couple down your codpiece before your go to bed.
Signed: Dr. Hoffmann of Stuttgart.
There's nothing indicating that the second or third opinion is correct.
Or will lead to a different outcome. The article says that in 21% of cases the diagnosis was completely changed, but not what the outcome of the treatment was. For a non-medical analogy, consider you have a rotting deck that needs fixing. You ask five builders in for a quote and get give different ways of addressing the problem. Most of them will probably end up fixing your deck, but they're all slightly different. Does this mean any of them are right or wrong?
An example from the medical field is blood pressure. Doctors are rewarded by their HMOs (see Goodhart's Law) for getting blood pressure within certain limits, so they aim for that even when it doesn't make sense - you get far, far more effect from lowering blood pressure at the extremes, even if you don't hit your target, compared to lowering it a few percent to hit your target.
So while the results are interesting, this needs more work to determine whether it's actually an issue or not.
the paper whose results you're mangling
Ooops, that was meant to be saying that the media mangles scientific research results, not the OP.
The summary should have clarified that this does not involve St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis. The article seems to be about a facility in California.
Exactly. The one they're talking about is St.Jude Patron Saint of Hopeless Causes and Buggy Medical Devices Inc, California.
The U.S. has used F-16 drones before as realistic targets for the F-35 to blow up in training
Sorta like MS discontinuing support for new processors/chipsets in order to force people onto Win10, the Air Farce has finally figured out how to get the F-35 adopted: Destroy anything else that might compete with it so you don't have any choice.
"We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievement." -- Richard J. Daley